The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-04-02
SUPREME COURT.
INTERMEDIARY DIVISION

Before Judge Preston. John Alapai
VS.. Paakaula, assumpsit Appeal by
plaintiff from Police Court, Honolulu.
Heard and decision reserved.
Union Feed Company VS.. George
II. Luce, assumpsit for $156.so. APP
peal from Police Court, Honolulu.
Time granted to be submitted in writ
ing. +. M. Hatch for plaintiff, the
Attorney General and A. P. Peterson
for defendant.
The King VS.. M. Rosenthal, selling
goods at wholesale without license.
Appeal from Police Court, Honolulu.
Continued till called up. A. P. Peter
son for the Crown, Hon. Paul Neu-
mann for defendant.
The King VS.. Akana ct al, violating
Sunday law. Appeal from District
Court, Koolauloa. Continued till April
term day Of the Court A p Peter.
son for the Crown, W. X. Castle for
the defendant
AT CHAMBERS.
The hobedS cOtbnS case was tried yes.
terday afternoon before Judge Preston.
Messrs. A. G. Smith and S. b. Dole
appeared for the prisoner, and the At
torney General for the Marshal. The
prisoner was produced promptly in
Court, at o'clock.
Following are the grounds on which
the release Of the prisoner, Francisco
=. dos Santos, was asked:
That the District Court of Kau has
no jurisdiction to try the ofense named
in the mittimus; that there is no such
ofiense known to our statutes as that
named in said mittimus; that said
Court has no jurisdiction to sentence
to imprisonment at hard labor for an
indefinite period for non.payment of
fine imposed, without providing for the
discharge Of the prisoner in case such
fine shall be collected out Of the prop.
erty of the offender; that the ofense
of which the prisoner was convicted is
not stated with sufficient certainty in
mittimusj that the judgment on which
said mttimus is based is not followed
in the commitment but said commit
ment varies therelrom, in that said
judgment imposes only Imprisonment
and fine, and not hard labor; and it is
not therein ordered that the prisoner
shall remain imprisoned at hard labor
until payment OF fine; the judgment is
for $3.50 fine and three months i'm
prisonment and $4,6s costs, whereas
the fine as set forth in said mittimus i.
for SIoo only; the judgment upor
which said mittimus was issued was Z
, judgment against francisco No. So
and not against Francisco p. dos San
tos No, IS as in said mittimus SCI
forth; the charge upon which the pris
oner was tried was not the same a
) that named in said mlttimus; the war
, rant Of arrest upon which said prisone
was tried was for "Francisco No. as
and Emanuel No. 90" and the officer
, return thereof shows no service on tn,
prisoner named in said mlttimus, bu
service on Franciko No. IS and Manue
No. 90, he mau (Pukik) said wal
rant of arrest was made returnab
on February goth, 1887, wherea
said prisoner was brought into Cour
= and tried on the goth day Of January
1857; said warrant Of arrest does no
state upon whom the assault wa
was made, nor the time or plac
8 Of such assault, The application wa
signed and sworn to by Mr.. A. c
Smith.
The Marshal's answer showed tn
prisoner was detained by virtue Of a mil
: timus issued by George Timoteo, Ju;
!, tice Of the District Court of East Kau
Hawaii.
After reading the application an,
answer, the case was argued at lengt
: by counsel. The Court ruled that tn
- case depended entirely upon the mitt
> mus, in which the prisoner was said t
have been convicted of assault with
> deadly weapon, an o0ense not specific
! in the statute, and decided that tn
- prisoner was entitled to be discharged